STRUCTURAL GUIDANCE FOR PLATFORM TIMBER FRAME

UKTFA Special Project, May 2008

Topic: Purpose:

Design of Platform Timber Frame for Disproportionate Collapse provisions BS 5268-2:2002/Amd 1 August 2007 includes new clauses providing guidance for complying with Part A3 of the Building Regulations 2000 (updated 2004).

This Technical Note is aimed at interpreting this guidance as it applies to Platform Timber Frame buildings and suggests methods for achieving compliance. Report Date: February 2008 Keywords: Platform Timber Frame, Disproportionate Collapse Building Regulations Requirement Requirement from Part A3 of the Building Regulations 2000, updated 2004 for England & Wales: The building shall be constructed so that in the event of an accident the building will not suffer collapse to an extent disproportionate to the cause. Requirement from Section C3 of the Technical Standards for compliance with the Building Standards (Scotland) 6th Amendment 2001: A building to which this standard applies must be designed and constructed so that in the event of damage occurring to any part of the building, the extent of any resulting collapse will not be disproportionate to the cause of the damage. Code Requirement relevant clauses
The following extracts are taken from British Standard BS 5268-2:2002/Amd 1 August 2007 1.6.3 Accidental damage 1.6.3.1 General In addition to designing a structure to support loads1 from normal use, there should be a reasonable probability that the structure will not collapse catastrophically because of misuse or accident. No structure can be expected to be resistant to the excessive loads or forces that could arise from an extreme cause, but it should not collapse to an extent that is disproportionate to the original cause. The general recommendations in 1.6.1.1 apply to all 1. The disproportionate collapse load case (as a result of misuse, accident or extreme cause) is never defined. It is a theoretical event that causes a force or removal of a load bearing element as defined in the clauses.

Commentary
The following notes provide some commentary on the interpretation of the new clauses:

buildings. The measures required for each Class of building as defined in the National Building Regulations or Standards are as follows: a) Class 1 buildings: no additional requirements. b) Class 2A buildings either: 1) Option 1. Effective anchorage of suspended floors to load-bearing walls in accordance with 1.6.3.2; or 2) Option 2. The provision of effective horizontal ties in accordance with 1.6.3.3. c) Class 2B buildings either: 1) Option 1. Effective horizontal ties in accordance with 1.6.3.3 and vertical ties in accordance with 1.6.3.4; or 2) Option 2. Check for the notional removal of load-bearing elements in accordance with 1.6.3.5. d) Class 3 buildings: The designer should carry out a risk assessment as required by the National Building Regulations or Standards. 1.6.3.2 Effective anchorage of suspended floors A suspended floor can be considered to be effectively anchored if the connection between the floor and load-bearing wall complies with either: Figure M.3 2; or BS 5628-1:2005, Annex D for timber floors supported by load-bearing masonry. 1.6.3.3 Effective horizontal ties 3 All buildings should be effectively tied together at each principal floor level and at roof level. Horizontal ties should be provided as follows (see also Figure M.I): Peripheral ties with a design capacity of 0.5F t should be provided around the whole perimeter of the building. Ties should be anchored at external and re-entrant corners.

2. Effective anchorage is provided by the horizontal structural junction strength of floor to wall connections as a deemed to satisfy.

3. Effective horizontal and vertical ties are the structural junction strengths of floor to wall connections as calculated. The calculation formula for ties is based on similar force calculations taken from the light gauge steel industry and for the design of restraint straps in masonry design codes. The tie force is an accidental

load value. Internal ties should be provided in two directions approximately at right angles. Horizontal and vertical tie forces are not practical for They should be effectively continuous most platform frame construction. throughout their length and should be anchored at the periphery of the building. They may be distributed evenly throughout the floor or may be concentrated at column positions. Internal ties should be designed for a load of Ft.

External columns and load-bearing walls should be tied in by a tie perpendicular to the edge of the building. The tie should be designed for the greater of F t or 1% of the maximum design vertical dead and imposed load in the column at that level. Corner columns should be tied in two directions approximately at right angles. The basic tie force F t should be calculated as follows: For distributed ties: F t = 0.5(g k + q k )L kN/m but not less than 3.5 kN/m. where g k is the full dead load per unit area of the floor or roof (kN/m 2 ). q k is the full imposed floor or roof load per unit area (kN/m2 ). st L is the mean spacing of ties transverse to the is the length of tie being considered (m). direction of the tie being considered (m). For concentrated ties: F t = 0.5(g k + q k )StL kN but not less than 10kN.

When assessing the capacity of an element acting as a tie, in accordance with 1.6.3.8 or its connections in accordance with 1.6.3.9, the tie load can be considered as an alternative load case to any other loads acting on that element. 1.6.3.4 Vertical ties Each column or wall carrying vertical load should be tied continuously from the lowest to the highest level. The tie should be capable of resisting a tensile force

equal to the maximum design load received by the column or wall from any one storey. There should be an effective connection between vertical ties and horizontal ties at each level. When assessing the capacity of an element acting as a vertical tie, in accordance with 1.6.3.8 or its connections in accordance with 1.6.3.9, the tie load can be considered as an alternative load case to any other loads acting on that element. 1.6.3.5 Notional removal4 of load-bearing element The structure should be checked for the effect of the removal, within each storey, of each supporting column, or beam supporting column(s) or load-bearing wall(s), or any nominal length of load-bearing wall, one at a time5, to ensure that disproportionate collapse does not occur. The portion of the building at risk of collapse should not exceed the lesser of 15% of the floor area of that storey or 70 m2. 6

4. Key point: Notional removal relates to the imaginary removal of a defined area and is not an actual length of panel or length of panel to a predetermined weak junction.

5. Key point: One wall at a time is notionally removed, If the area at risk exceeds the limits given then the not a number of walls together. column, beam or load-bearing wall should be designed as a key element in accordance with 1.6.3.6. 6. Some collapse is allowable within the limits set by the Building Regulations. ie 15% of the floor area of that storey or 70 m2 whichever is the lesser and does not extend further than the immediate adjacent storeys. Storey area is the full building plan area.

The nominal length of a load-bearing wall should be taken as: In the case of an external wall, the length measured between vertical lateral restraints7.

In the case of an internal wall, the length measured between effective vertical lateral restraints but not exceeding 2.25h, where h is the 7. Vertical lateral restraints are structural walls of height between horizontal restraints as shown in minimum width 1200mm and are not key elements. Figure M.2.

When considering the residual structure the loading should be as defined in 1.6.3.7. The capacity of any relevant elements should be calculated in accordance with 1.6.3.8 and their connections should be calculated in accordance with 1.6.3.9. 1.6.3.6 Key element8 A key element should be designed for the accidental loading specified in BS 6399-1. Structural elements that provide lateral restraint vital to the stability of a key element should also be designed as a key element. The accidental loading should be applied to the member 8. The principle of design for key elements or protected members is different from notional removal. from all horizontal and vertical directions, in one Lengths of panel either side of a key element are likely direction at a time, together with the reactions from

to be removed which may be significant leaving a other building components attached to the member post and beam structural frame to support the that are subject to the same accidental loading but limited to the maximum reactions that could reasonably remaining building. be transmitted, considering the capacity of such members and their connections. The accidental loads should be considered as acting with the loads given in 1.6.3.7. The capacity of the element should be calculated in accordance with 1.6.3.8 and its connections should be calculated in accordance with 1.6.3.9. 1.6.3.7 Design loads for the residual structure When considering design of the residual structure the following loads should be considered, where appropriate: the dead load a third of the imposed load, except that in the case of buildings used predominantly for storage, or where the imposed load is of a permanent nature, the full imposed load should be used. A third of the imposed roof or snow load 100% of any ceiling storage loads a third of the wind load9 9. The wind loading requirement is to check against racking capacity of the structure after removal of a load bearing wall. 10. The permissible stress increase factor can be assumed to be a k3 = 2.25 duration of load factor.

1.6.3.8 Permissible stresses for accidental load cases When considering the probable effects of misuse, accident or particular hazards, or when computing the residual stability of the damaged structure, the designer should normally multiply the values recommended in BS 5268-2 for all long-term permissible stresses by a factor of 2.25. 10 1.6.3.9 Permissible fastener load for accidental load cases When considering the probable effects of misuse, accident or particular hazards, or when computing the residual stability of the damaged structure, the designer should normally multiply the values recommended in BS 5268-2 for all long-term permissible loads on fasteners by a factor of 3.011. In the case of fastenings through particleboard the values recommended for long-term permissible loads should be increased by a factor of 4.0.

11. The permissible fastener load increase factor can be assumed to be a k48,52 = 3.00 duration of load factor. The value is higher for mechanical fasteners due to the factors already incorporated in the code.

References to other Guidance: 1) UKTFA Code of Practice for Engineered Wood Products 1st Ed. Jan 07 2) UKTFA Technical Bulletin 3 Design Guide for Disproportionate Collapse - March 2005 3) Multi-storey timber frame buildings a design guide TRADA/BRE 2003 4) BS5268-2:2002 (Amd1) August 2007 5) NHBC Technical Guidance Note Part A3 Guidance November 2004 Introduction: Building Regulations Requirements: All structures must comply with the minimum UK Building Regulation requirements for robustness. The building regulations address this aspect of the design using the term disproportionate collapse. All buildings will be subject to the robustness check as required by Part A Structure, of the Building Regulations amended December 2004. Building Regulations Table 11 has classified buildings into 4 classes based on risk assessments dependent on the type of building and levels of occupancy, as follows. Class 1, Single occupancy buildings from 1 to 4 storeys e.g. detached houses, town houses etc. Class 2A, Houses or apartments (residential nature), not exceeding 4 storeys. Class 2B, Houses or apartments and other residential buildings, exceeding 4 storeys but limited to 15 storeys. Educational buildings not exceeding 15 storeys. Hospitals not exceeding 3 storeys. Class 3, Stadiums, sports grounds, or building subjected to high frequency of loading (crowd accumulation) etc, subjected to full sensitivity analysis and has no specific mentioned design criteria.

Class of Building for Disproportionate Collapse: Requirement A3 as a principle applies to all buildings. Previous regulations were aimed at specific heights of buildings. For example, for 5 storey apartments disproportionate collapse provisions applied but for 4 storey apartments it did not. The 2004 Regulations brings the UK in line with European Code proposals in terminology and while there are some differences, the general 5-storey or greater rule for disproportionate collapse-specific design still applies. For buildings of 4 storeys or less the code and regulations aim at good practice to achieve robustness. Some terminology refers to progressive collapse which is a reference to what the design for disproportionate collapse is aimed at avoiding. This document will refer to the term

disproportionate collapse. Reference should be made to NHBC Technical Guidance Note Part A3 Guidance November 2004(5) for complex buildings with multiple uses to assess the relevant Class of building. Elements of the building with differing uses or numbers of storeys may be classed independently for disproportionate collapse as long as they can be shown to be independently stable for wind load effects. Meeting A3 requirements: Disproportionate collapse is instigated by localized failure of one of the elements within the structure leading to significant failure of several floors in the building. Disproportionate collapse can be reduced or minimized by providing some structural continuity (ties) within the elements of structure or by ensuring a degree of structural redundancy by considering notional removal of load-bearing elements. BS5268-2:2002 (Amd1) August 2007 guidance: The measures required for each Class of building are as follows: Class 1: no additional requirement. Class 2A: either: Option 1 provision of effective anchorage of suspended floors to load-bearing walls as shown in Figure M3; or Option 2 provision of effective horizontal ties as shown in Figure M1. Class 2B: either: Option 1 provision of effective horizontal and vertical ties as shown in Figure M1.; or Option 2 check for the notional removal of load-bearing elements Class 3: the designer should carry out a risk assessment as required by the Building regulations. Class 2A Buildings: The Building Regulations state that for Class 2A buildings, robustness will be achieved by providing effective horizontal ties, or effective anchorage of suspended floors to walls. In providing robustness for category 2A, minimum mechanical fixing specifications to provide anchorage of suspended floors to walls and notional horizontal tying for platform timber frame structures are provided in UKTFA Technical Bulletin 3 Design Guide for Disproportionate Collapse - March 2005(2) (see Appendix 1), UKTFA CP for Engineered Wood Products 1st Ed. Jan 07(Fig 3.13) (1) and Figure M3 of BS5268-2:2002. (4)

For Class 2A buildings, the approach is to adopt good building practice of providing lateral restraint to walls and common anchorage details of floors to walls. The design process will involve checking the capacity of the component interfaces (e.g. panel rail to soleplate, soleplate to floor deck, floor joists to head binder and head binder to panel rail) against the variable horizontal wind forces. The timber frame designer should therefore be providing a robust connection at each and every junction as part of the normal design process.

Fig 1: BS 5268 Figure M3 - exploded floor detail showing minimum nailing densities.

Key points to note are: The fixings at each junction interface. The blockings at floor perimeters where joists are parallel to the wall. Where these details are not applicable or cannot be adopted due to different framing arrangements, effective horizontal ties should be designed in accordance with BS52682:2002 Cl1.6.3.3. (4)

Class 2B Buildings: The Building Regulations guidance state that for Class 2B buildings, robustness will be achieved by providing effective horizontal ties together with effective vertical ties or by checking that upon notional removal of a load bearing wall (one at a time in each storey of the building) the building remains stable and that the area of floor at any storey at risk of collapse does not exceed 15% of the floor area of that storey or 70sq.m, whichever is the smaller, and does not exceed further than the immediate adjacent storeys. Where the notional removal of lengths of walls would result in an extent of damage in excess of the above limit, then the use of a key element design approach for an accidental design loading of 34 kN/sq.m applied in the horizontal and vertical directions (one at a time) to the key element and any attached components (e.g. cladding) having regard to the ultimate strength of those components and their connections, should be adopted. Consideration of notional panel removal and a Sensitivity Analysis approach: In checking the robustness of timber frame buildings, Engineers are to apply judgmentbased thinking to the likely 3-dimensional structural behaviour of a building, backed, where appropriate, with a 2-dimensional structural assessment of discrete elements. The TF2000 fullsize testing has shown that this approach is conservative but appropriate to determining the robustness of platform frame construction in buildings such as the medium-rise TF2000 building (3). Multi-storey timber frame buildings a design guide TRADA/BRE 2003(3) provides guidance for the design process for Class 2B buildings where notional removal of load bearing walls is part of the design check to comply with Regulation A3: A Sensitivity Analysis should be carried out on primary supporting members to establish if their removal, one at a time in each storey, to check that upon its removal the rest of the structure would bridge over the resulting lack of support, albeit in a substantially deformed condition, or that the risk of collapse of the remaining structure due to the removal of the member is within the limits prescribed by the Building regulations. If it is not possible to bridge over a missing member or to limit the area at risk, the member should be designed as a protected or key element. Methods of Detailing for DC Provision of Bridging Elements: The TF2000 test building provided proof of the inherent robustness and availability of secondary load paths in platform timber frame. Therefore, sheathed walls with no openings

designed to BS5268:Part 6.1 can be regarded as deep beams with vertical shear taken in the panel to panel connections and tension taken out through the sheathing material in continuation with any timber framework across the panel junction e.g. rim boards. Furthermore, the TF2000 tests demonstrated that the floor has additional strength through the transverse spanning capacity of the floor that is supported on the walls parallel to the span (3). It is possible to undertake structural calculations to prove that wall panels can be supported by panel action but often large or numerous openings occur, leading to a requirement for additional bridging members to be provided as part of the robustness design. Unfortunately the TF2000 tests were specific to that building floor and panel shape and size. The findings cannot be used as a general compliance with the regulations and independent structural checks on buildings are required. The Rim Beam Method: The provision of a continuous engineered timber rim beam at every floor level (not generally required at roof level) at the end of all joist spans ensures that structural continuity is achieved by providing vertical load transfer as a bridging elements and horizontal continuity by providing a nailing density at all interfaces in accordance with the recommendations of UKTFA Technical Bulletin 3 Design Guide for Disproportionate Collapse - March 2005(2) and BS5268-2:2002 (Amd1) August 200 Figure M3. (4)
Fig 2: Indicative Rim Beam arrangement

This method allows joisted floor structures to be assembled in the factory as cassettes with a

rim board used to connect the ends of the joists together for transportation and which remains as a vertical load transfer element in the completed structure. A separate rim beam, which is usually installed loose on site, spans between points of vertical lateral restraint (return walls) or key elements and acts as a bridging member such that if loadbearing walls are notionally removed between the walls or key elements, the resulting collapse will be limited to the maximum areas allowed and any remaining structure will remain in place albeit with significant deformation being acceptable. An example of the Rim Beam Structural Methodology is shown in Appendix 2 Intersecting return walls: Intersecting return walls must be of 1200mm minimum length in total (excluding framed openings). These walls can be non-load bearing in the conventional sense but must be capable of transferring loads down through the structure. The use of lightweight partitions built off of floating floors is not acceptable. The Rim Beams are supported at these wall intersections by corner stud groups. It is important that the Rim Beams supporting the remaining structure have a full bearing on studs at the panel junctions and to achieve this, the wall panels should be lapped in the opposite manner to the Rim Beams. If no stud clusters are present below the Rim Beam bearing, hangers or fixings are to be provided off of adjacent Rim Beams. For external panels the minimum length of wall to be considered for notional removal is 2.4m, with no maximum length. Where the Rim Beams cannot be designed to span the required distance between return walls, Key Element posts will be required to split the span of the Rim Beams. For internal walls the maximum length of wall to be considered is 2.25H where H is the clear height of the panel between lateral supports. Rim Beam Design: The Rim Beams and their connections should be designed to withstand vertical loading comprising the full floor dead load plus one third of the normal imposed load plus the weight of a single storey of wall plus any claddings or linings. A load duration factor, K3, of 2.25 and a deflection limit of L/30 should be applied to timber members and a k48,52 = 3.00 for mechanical fixings.

Fig 3: Example Design of a typical Rim Beam supporting a floor and external wall only

Assumptions for Rim Beam design: In designing Rim Beams, the assumptions listed below are applicable: a) Rim beam design checks are carried out on the principal of notional removal of wall panels, one at a time, between intersecting return walls ie: a wall is notionally removed, the structure is checked for adequacy and then the wall is replaced. These checks are then repeated for other notionally removed panels. b) For external panels the minimum length of wall to be considered is 2.4m, with no maximum length. For internal walls the maximum length of wall to be considered is 2.25H where H is the clear height of the panel between lateral supports (the top of the structural deck level below to the underside of the structural joist level above). For compartment walls, only one leaf at a time is to be considered for removal. c) Rim beams are designed to support the dead weight of the structure to be supported, 1/3rd of the imposed loads and a single storey of wall panel with any supported claddings or linings, following a collapse event of the supporting wall panels below being removed (one at a time). For this event, a duration of load factor of k3 = 2.25 and deflection limit of L/30 are applicable for timber elements. d) Rim beams are also to provide a horizontal tying action at all levels through the structure. The fixings presented for Category 2A buildings (BS5268-2:2002 (Amd1) August 200 Figure M3(4)) are the minimum fixings required for robustness. The Engineer is to determine the design approach for the Rim beam. The disproportionate collapse design does not require the building to be serviceable after the event, merely safe for occupants to escape and emergency services to enter the building. A typical Rim beam design can be seen in Fig 3. Key Element design principles: The key element approach is not related to notional removal. The introduction of a key element is an alternative design approach. The difference is easily explained when a key element is a column in a length of wall. This key element column is not considered as a lateral restraint to the wall and a check of the notional removal of the wall either side of the column is not valid. The design of the column is for 34kN/sq.m in any horizontal direction. The panels attached to the post on both sides are to be checked to see if they will remain attached to the column under this loading. If they remain attached, then the column is designed to take the reaction from the wall panels as well as the load on the column itself. Other considerations to achieve a robust structure The in-service design of the building must not be compromised by the disproportionate

collapse design. Key points to note are: A building should not be provided with intentional weak points for notional panel removal. The term notional is deliberately used as a means of undertaking an imaginary design situation. The actual cause and practicality of the event is not defined or to be considered. Disproportionate collapse design is a methodology to enhance a building robustness. As always, a check on the differential movement of the in-service condition of the building should be carried out. The support of external claddings should also be considered during an event.

Appendix 1: Minimum recommended nailing densities to provide nominal horizontal tying for Class 2A& 2B buildings: For conventional timber frame buildings of cellular plan form the UKTFA have recommended that the effective anchorage of floors to walls will be achieved with a minimum density of nails as shown below.
Fig 4: Diagrammatic details of typical nailing density at all interfaces in accordance with the recommendations of BS5268: 2002 and UKTFA guidance dated December 2004

For more information regarding robust junction connections for Platform Timber Frame buildings, refer to UKTFA Technical Note: Robustness of platform timber frame and connectivity of the framing members.

Appendix 2: Disproportionate Collapse Philosophy Example of Rim Beam Structural Methodology

Key to diagram: E = external walls, I = internal load bearing walls, P = party wall (single skin), J = joists, H = clear height of the panel between lateral supports. Design Check/D.C. Event 1: Notional removal of Internal wall panel I0 of maximum length 2.25H Continuous joist spans J1-J5 avoid the need for rim beams on internal supports. On removal of the supporting wall I0 the joists act in double span at each subsequent level and support the floor loads plus a single storey height of (now non-load bearing) wall panel I1-I5 supported off the double-spanning joists. Ie. J1 supports I1, J2 supports I2 etc. Design Check/D.C. Event 2: Notional removal of External wall panel E3 between intersecting return walls or defined key elements. (Party walls P0 to P5 similar) Following removal of wall panel E3, unless the joists are top-hung over the rim beam, joists J4 are assumed to collapse or cantilever and a check should be carried out to ensure that the resulting floor collapse will constitute less than 15% of the floor area of that storey or 70sq.m, whichever is the smaller. Rim beam R4 is designed to support panel E4 and floor joists J5 by 'bridging' over the notionally removed wall panel. Subsequent rim beams R5 support wall panels E5 and roof joists J6. The rim beams are tied back to the floor diaphragm with the minimum nailing densities.

Appendix 3: Disproportionate Collapse Philosophy - Cantilevered Joists Method

Notional removal of External wall panel E3 (Party walls similar) between intersecting return walls or defined key elements. Following removal of wall panel E2 continuous joists J3 cantilever and support panel E3 (including any supported cladding). Subsequent joists also cantilever and support a storey height of wall panel. A check should be carried out to ensure that there is sufficient holding down resistance at the backspan of the cantilevered joists to resist uplift (especially at top storey level). Continuous joists are designed to support a single storey of wall panel plus the full dead load plus 33% of the imposed loads on that floor. A duration of load factor of k3 = 2.25 and deflection limit of L/30 are applicable for accidental load case.

Topic: Purpose:

Floor Serviceability Limits Deflection of floors is classified as a serviceability issue. There have been investigations carried out by the industry into the acceptable limits of floor deflection. In 2006 the NHBC changed their recommendations for allowable deflection limits for I-joist engineered floor systems and BS 5268-2:2002 + Amd 1 updated 2007 has now also presented additional deflection criteria. This report provides background to the changes and additional recommendations for floor serviceability that Engineers may wish to follow. February 2008 Platform Timber Frame, Floor joists, Deflection, Serviceability Commentary
The following notes provide some commentary on the interpretation of the new clauses: 1. The changes reflect the trend for blocking or strutting to be omitted on proprietary joist products. Although the British Standard does not address I-joist or open web joists this clause is in fact aimed at this market. 2. This note refers to the fact that maximum

Report Date: Keywords: Code Requirement relevant clauses

The following extracts are taken from British Standard BS 5268-2:2002/Amd 1 August 2007 2.10.7 Deflection and stiffness The dimensions of flexural members should be such as to restrict deflection within limits appropriate to the type of structure, having regard to the possibility of damage to surfacing materials, ceilings, partitions and finishings, and to the functional needs as well as aesthetic requirments. In addition to the deflection due to bending, the shear deflection may be significant and should be taken into account. For most general purposes, this recommendation may be assumed to be satisfied if the deflection of the member when fully loaded does not exceed 0.003 of the span. For domestic floor joists, the deflection under full load should not exceed the lesser of 0.003 times the span or 14 mm, where: , = 0.86 for floors whose transverse stiffness is provided by the decking/ceiling. = 1.00 for floors where there is additional transverse stiffness to that from the decking/ceiling. This additional transverse stiffness may be provided by herringbone strutting or by blocking1 of depth at least 75% of the depth of the joists or, in the case of transverse members which are continuous across the joists (i.e. joists with an open-webbed structure), by timbers of depth at least 30% of the depth of the joists.
NOTE The 14 mm deflection is to avoid undue vibration under moving or impact loading. 2

Subject to consideration being given to the effect of excessive deformation, members may be precambered to account for the deflection under full dead or permanent load, and in this case the deflection under live or intermittent load should not exceed 0.003 of the span.

deflection limits are not to limit static deflection but are to control vibration performance.

The following extracts are taken from Eurocode 5 (BS EN 1995 -1 -1:2004) + UK National Annex: NA to BSEN 1995-1-1:2004: NA.2.5 Limiting values for deflections of beams [BS EN 1995-1-1:2004, 7.2(2)] 3. This allows for the Client to decide on the acceptable level of deflection appropriate to the building use and quality. 4. These limits are applicable to total deflection including creep deflection, something which the British Standard already includes for. The two codes should not be mixed. 5. Vibration of residential floors is a complex area and one that requires a clear understanding of the construction mass and product qualities.

As stated in BS EN 1990:2002, Al.4.2(2), the serviceability criteria should be specified for each project and agreed with the client. 3 The values in Table NA.4, which take into account creep deformations, are given for guidance. Table NA.4 Limiting values for deflections of individual beams4 Limiting value for net final deflections of individual beams, wnet,fin A member of span, l between two supports Roof or floor members with a plastered or plasterboard ceiling Roof or floor members without a plastered or plasterboard ceiling l/250 l/150 A member with a cantilever, l l/125 l/75

Type of member

NOTE When calculating' wnet,fin w,fin should be calculated as ufin in accordance with. BS EN 1995-1-1:2004,2.2.3(5). NA.2.6 Vibrations in residential floors [BS EN 1995-1-1:2004, 7.3.3(2)] 5

NOTE For the value of the modal damping ratio, , ,in BS EN 1995-1-1:2004, 7.8.1(3), a value of 0,02 has been found appropriate for typical UK floors. NA.2.6.1 BS EN 1995-1-1:2004, 7.3.3(2) is implemented nationally by using Table NA.5.

Table NA.5

Limits for a and b in BS EN 1995-1-1:2004 expressions (7.3) and (7.4)

Parameter a, deflection of floor under a 1 kN point load

Limit 1,8 mm for l 4 000 mm

b, constant for the control of unit impulse velocity response

16 5OO/ l1.1 mm for l > 4 000 mm where l = joist span in mm b = 180 - 60a for a 1 mm for a > 1 mm b = 160 - 40a

NOTE The formulae for b correspond, to BS EN 1995-1-1:2004, Figure 7.2. With a value of 0,02 far the modal damping ratio , , the unit impulse velocity response will not normally govern the size of floor joists in residential timber floors.

NA.2.6.2 The recommended limit on a may be compared with a corresponding floor deflection calculated as: (NA.1) 1000 kdist leq 3 kamp a mm 48 (EI)joist where kdist = proportion of point load acting on a single joist leq = equivalent floor span in mm kamp = amplification factor to account for shear deflections in the case of solid timber and glued thin-webbed joists or joint slip hi the case of mechanically-jointed floor trusses (EI)joist= bending stiffness of a joist in Nmm2 (calculated using Emean) where kdist = max kstrut [0,38-0 J 08ln[14EI b / s 4 ] ] 0,30

kstrut

= 0,97 for single or multiple lines of strutting, installed in accordance with reference NA.4.1, otherwise 1,0 (EI)b = floor flexural rigidity perpendicular to the joists in Nmm2/m s = joist spacing in mm leq = span, t, in mm, for simply supported single span joists = 0,9 1 for the end spans of continuous joists = 0,85 f for the internal spans of continuous joists kamp = 1,05 for simply-supported solid timber joists = 1,10 for continuous solid timber joists = 1,15 for simply-supported glued thin-webbed joists = 1,30 for continuous glued thin-webbed joists = 1,30 for simply-supported mechanically-jointed floor trusses = 1,45 for continuous mechanically-jointed floor trusses. (EI)b is calculated as the flexural rigidity of the floor decking perpendicular to the joists, using Emean for E. Discontinuities at the edges of floor panels or the ends of floor boards may be ignored. (EI)b may be increased by adding the flexural rigidity of plasterboard ceilings fastened

directly to the soffit of the floor joists, assuming Eplasterboard = 2000N/mm 2 . (EI)b may be increased for open web joists with a continuous transverse bracing member fastened to all the joists within 0,1l of mid-span, by adding the bending stiffness of the transverse member in Nmm2 divided by the span l in metres. The fundamental frequency f1 should not be less than 8 Hz unless a special investigation is made. In BS EN 1995-1-1 expression 7.5 the mass of the floor should be the permanent actions only without including partition loads or any variable actions. In calculating the equivalent plate bending stiffness (El) of floors, in which the decking is adhesively bonded to the joists, no allowance should be made for composite action unless the floor is designed in accordance with 9.1.2 and with adhesives meeting the requirements of 3.6 and the detailing and control provisions of 10.3.

Introduction The change in BS 5268-2: 2002 clause 2.10.7 Deflection & stiffness reflect changes by earlier NHBC guidelines. The NHBC changes occurred before in depth research. The BS 5268-2 changes followed summary recommendations by Trada and the Code Committee. Previous research into floor serviceability: It is known that Trada Technology Ltd. were commissioned by the NHBC to develop a simple design approach for lightweight floor systems using engineered timber joists that would ensure an in-service performance for properly constructed floors comparable to that of traditional floors made with solid timber joists. UKTFA have discussed the history of research carried out into deflections of floor joists with Trada and this guidance provides a summary of this research. Research was based mainly on Eurocode 5 and on five overseas sources of information, which related design methods for I-joisted floors to user satisfaction. It was possible to compare the results of the design methods studied with the results given by BS 5268 and EC5, and to adjust the latter two where it appeared that they deviated from the consensus view of other researchers, while still maintaining overall performance levels similar to those which have proved acceptable in the UK for floors made with solid timber joists and strutting up to 4 meters in span. As a result two sets of design recommendations have been made, one for designs based on BS 5268, and the other for designs based on EC5. Design recommendations and advice: For design to BS 5268: For designs to BS 5268 it was concluded that: (i) When strutting is omitted from floors in which it would normally be fitted in

(ii) (iii)

accordance with current best practice, the 14 mm deflection limit under dead + imposed load should be reduced to 12.6 mm. In addition, the stiffness required for all forms of timber joist should be increased for spans from 4 m to 8 m by a factor increasing from 1.0 to 1.4 across this range. No other special treatment for I-joists is required.

Hence, while BS 5268 continues to be used, the following recommendations are made for the design of floors made with solid timber or prefabricated glued I-joists: The combined instantaneous bending and shear deflection of a single joist measured in mm should not exceed the lesser of 0.003 and ulim where: = joist span in mm ulim = 18 L mm for joists with strutting in accordance with current best practice ulim = 0.9(18-L) mm for joists without strutting where L = joist span in m.

For design to Eurocode 5: Under Eurocode design protocols, deflection limits are advisory and should be agreed by the designer and client at the beginning of the design process. The guidance given in the UK NA to EC5 is therefore advisory. In the light of this project(3) TRADA recommends that timber floors in the UK should be designed to Eurocode 5 and its National Annex, but with the following changes. (i) (ii) The point load deflection limit for spans above 4000 mm should be tightened to 131030/1.35. While I-joist designers may prefer to use the final deflection limits given in the EC5 NA when calculating span tables in order to be able to claim that their designs are in accordance with the UK NA, for everyday office design it is recommended that curvature deflection limits on domestic floors be calculated as in BS 5268 in order to relate the limits more closely to research results, and to reduce design time and the possibility of errors. The effect on floor joist stiffness will be very small. For floors in which one end of the joists is supported on a beam the frequency of vibration of the floor system as a whole should be calculated as: f1,system = ( f21,joist x f21,beam/ f21,joist + f21,beam)

(iii)

Where the frequencies of the joists and beam f1,joistand f1,beam, are calculated as stated in EC5, but using the stiffness of a joist or beam and the mass of the floor supported by the joist of beam without imposed load.

Where a beam is securely attached to a permanent partition above or below it, it may be possible to regard it as a deep beam which would have a very high fundamental frequency. In this case it could be considered to be a rigid support when calculating the fundamental frequency of the floor as a whole. Other points for consideration: (i) Increased stiffness

It is likely that perceived floor performance would improve if the resulting joist bending stiffness at all spans were increased by an additional factor of 10%. (ii) Site installation

It is recommended that continuing efforts be made to ensure that floor joists, decking, plasterboard and (where fitted) strutting are installed correctly in properly conditioned members free from building dust and debris, since squeaks and creaks are one of the most common causes of complaints about floors. (iii) Multiple span joists

There are difficulties in maintaining close tolerances in multiple span joist supports. Particular care should be taken to ensure that intermediate supports on multiple-span joists are installed at the correct height, with any necessary packing being of adequate strength and stiffness. It is recommended that for multiple span joists the span ratios are kept approximately equal to prevent short span uplift, especially where joists are not built-in but are supported in joist hangers. (iv) Span table options

It is recommended that if prefabricated joist manufacturers wish to publish span tables giving options for more than one performance level, then the 10% better and 20-% better spans should be calculated in accordance with the tightened Eurocode 5 point load limit of 131030/1.35, and then be reduced by 0.90.25 and 0.80.25 respectively, i.e. to 0.974 for the 10% better and 0.946 for the 20% better options. These reductions are broadly equivalent to increasing the joist stiffness by 10% and 20% respectively. (v) System deflection

It is recommended that for joists supported by a beam at one end which is also subject to deflection, then the combined instantaneous bending and shear deflection of a single joist measured in mm should not exceed the lesser of 0.003 and ulim where: = joist span in mm

ulim = 18 L (ubeam/2) mm for joists with strutting in accordance with current best practice ulim = 0.9(18 - L - (ubeam/2)) mm for joists without strutting where L = joist span in m and ubeam = the combined instantaneous bending and shear deflection of the beam at the connection.

Topic: Purpose: Report Date: Keywords:

Robustness and floor to wall connectivity of Platform Timber Frame To provide platform timber frame Engineers and Designers with guidance on the principles of robustness and connectivity of walls to floors for a robust construction. February 2008 Platform Timber Frame, Robustness, Fixings, Connectivity, Typical details, Disproportionate Collapse, stability and serviceability.

Code Requirement relevant clauses Robustness of design is implied in the BS 5268 2- 2002(2007 edition) and referred to in the Eurocodes. However robustness as a design principle is not always followed. The following provides clause references that should be considered. BS 5268 2- 2002 clause 1.6. Design Considerations states the following:
1.6.1.1 The design and details of parts and components should be compatible, particularly in view of the increasing use of prefabricated components such as trussed rafters and floors. The designer responsible for the overall stability of the structure should ensure this compatibility even when some or all of the design and details are the work of another designer. To ensure that a design is robust and stable a) the geometry of the structure should be considered; b) required interaction and connections between timber load bearing elements and between such elements and other parts of the structure should be assured; c) suitable bracing or diaphragm effect should be provided in planes parallel to the direction of the lateral forces acting on the whole structure. In addition, the designer should state in the health and safety plan any special precautions or temporary propping necessary at each and every stage in the construction process to ensure overall stability of all parts of the structure. 1.6.1.2 With regard to the design process, design, including design for the construction durability and use in service, should be considered as a whole. NOTE Unless clearly defined standards for materials, production, workmanship and maintenance are provided and complied with the design intentions may not be realized. 1.6.1.3 With regard to basic assumptions covering durability, workmanship and materials, the quality of the timber and other materials, and of the workmanship as verified by inspections, should be adequate to ensure safety, serviceability and durability.

BS 5268 2- 2002 clause 1.6.3 Accidental damage refer to Technical Report Design of Platform Timber Frame for Disproportionate Collapse provisions for interpretation of this

clause relating to accidental damage. BS 5268-6.1:1996 clause 4.4 Stability refer to Technical Report Stability of platform Timber Frame for interpretation of the new code requirements for stability design of platform timber frame structures. References to other Guidance: 1) Multi-storey timber frame buildings a design guide TRADA/BRE 2003 2) BS5268-2:2002 (Amd1) August 2007 3) Trada Technology Timber frame housing: UK Structural recommendations 2006 4) BS 5268-6.1:1996 incorporating amendments Nos. 1&2. 5) BS 5268-6.2:2001 6) Trada Technology - Timber frame construction: 3rd edition: 2001 Introduction: Robustness of platform timber frame is the ability of the structure to withstand a range of variations in the predetermined design and construction circumstances without sustaining loss of function or requiring remedial work. In this document the terms Engineer and Designer are used to mean the following: Engineer A suitably qualified Structural Engineer/Timber Frame Engineer who is responsible for the numerical calculations associated with the design of the superstructure to resist the applied loadings. Designer - A suitably qualified Structural Technician/Timber Frame Production Engineer who is responsible for the production of general arrangement and fabrication drawings which are required to manufacture and build the structure in accordance with the Engineers design. Whilst robustness and floor to wall connectivity are related subjects, this guidance is separated into two parts. Part 1 considers robustness as a design principle and philosophy. Part 2 considers the connectivity of joists to walls as an example of good practice to be achieved at a wall to floor junction.

Part 1 Principles for achieving a robust building: Principles on building robustness Select a structural form which has low sensitivity to the hazards considered. Avoid as far as possible structural systems, which may collapse without warning. Provide structural forms that can be tied together. Platform timber frame Platform timber frame is inherently robust through the interconnectivity of walls and floor panels. History of use, tests and research has shown that correctly built frameworks achieve a significant level of robustness. The full range of the hazards or risks should be considered as platform timber frame continues to be used for challenging structures. As new products for floors and walls get introduced into the build process the structural integrity and ability to ensure robust connections should be questioned at all stages. Select a structural form and design that can survive adequately the accidental removal of an individual element or a limited part of a structure, or reasonable localised damage. Ensure that layouts and plan arrangements provide returns and intersecting walls and floors. Adopt compatible materials used in the structure and ensure adequate interaction. Robustness for serviceability: The guidance contained in this report is about the provision of robustness for a structure Disproportionate collapse design principles have been established and used successfully see Multi-storey timber frame buildings a design guide TRADA/BRE 20031)

Platform timber frame is a structural form specifically for cellular layouts and plan aspects greater than 2:1 will require additional design and robustness to ensure its suitability as a building solution. Connectivity of materials used in the build process is essential and normal timber frame components provide easy methods of fastening together.

during normal use. The structure can be said to be robust when it is not sensitive to slight variations in loading or as-built details or as a result of constructional tolerances. Robustness in this case is to ensure the structure remains serviceable. This is in contrast to the new BS 5268 Part 2 clause on Disproportionate Collapse which is an ultimate limit of robustness; i.e. the building exhibits a degree of robustness against collapse but can be unserviceable after the event causing the loss of support. A typical example of robustness is the ability of the structure to continue to function if, say 10% of the nails required to fix a junction have been incorrectly installed. The factors of safety applied in the engineering design have long been claimed to be the process whereby robustness is achieved. However, while this is partially correct, there are other elements of robustness that fall outside of the design code factors of safety. One of the fundamental principles of robust engineering and design is to ensure practical, buildable solutions are applied, taking into account the potential risks in the build process (Note that risks are known or feasible events and not the unspecified events applicable to disproportionate collapse design). An example of a robust design solution would be to detail all elements so that they can only physically be installed in the correct orientation or location so that errors in interpretation can not be made. One of the mantras of robust design is that if a detail can be interpreted in more than one way it is not robust. Platform Timber Frame design and build process and the potential for errors: To achieve robustness of a structure the platform timber frame design and build process needs to be understood and an appreciation of good practice is also required. The platform timber frame process can be considered as comprising the following stages: A. Engineer to design the framework and assembly based on Code criteria and good practice. B. Designer to translate the Engineers solutions and guidance into fabrication drawings and erecting plans. C. Fabricator to construct the assemble components and package for transportation. D. Erector to assemble the comments into a framework on site that forms the structural shell of the building. E. Follow-on trades complete the building by dressing the structural shell with services and cladding. At each stage in the process a lack of clarity of information and potential for misinterpretation can cause errors in the build which in turn can be considered a lack of robustness. At each stage of the process the leader, at that point of the process, has to determine if the solution being presented is robust. Robustness is not always a calculated engineered value or deliverable. Robustness is more to do with practical solutions that have

minimal risk of not being achieved in the final assembly and build of the structure. The responsibility for robust solutions rests with the Engineer for the structural concepts and framework solution and with the Designer for the appropriate details, clarity of information and ability to identify errors in the virtual on-screen build process. Engineering Robustness: The Engineer will undertake calculations for the structure and detail junctions to transfer the applied forces with a predetermined factor of safety. The Engineer will check a structure and its components under four conditions: 1) Standard design: to withstand the applied forces and to attain the agreed level of serviceability in accordance with the code requirements by adopting the factors of safety within the codes. 2) Construction period design check: to ensure that the structure is capable of withstanding the construction loadings and to be stable during various stages of the construction process. 3) Robustness for Serviceability: to ensure that the detail design of the assemblies and frameworks are compatible with each element and that the junctions of members can be fitted and secured safely and practically. 4) Design against Ultimate robustness or Disproportionate Collapse: to ensure that the building has sufficient strength in accordance with the rules for the type and scale of building. Condition 3 is where the robustness of the proposed engineering solutions is to be considered by the Engineer. Robustness Checking for the Engineer: Each project will be specific to its own criteria but as a guide the following are examples of the checking procedure to be adopted: a) Are the fixing requirements clear and appropriate for the project? b) Are the junction details checked for the applied forces eg sole plate junctions, floor to wall junctions, roof to wall junctions? c) Has the compatibility of elements been considered eg cladding to frame interface. d) Are the details for assembly of components presented? e.g. are fixings and assembly instructions clear. e) Are minimum requirements for mechanical fixings achieved and where additional fixings are required, is this clearly marked e.g. areas of high racking forces clearly noted?

f) Are areas of high risk of failure noted and the necessary information translated to the designer and client for possible designing-out of these risk areas, e.g. where multiple trade components come together to form the structure without adequate coordination or checking by a structural engineer. g) Material specification for durability e.g. is the correct preservative treatment or detailing to avoid moisture present? h) Component compatibility for shrinkage e.g. will differential movement create additional stresses to the members and framework? i) Component connectivity to other members and finishing trades e.g. is there sufficient width of stud for the cladding fixings? j) Is there more than one way of interpreting the construction drawings? Design Robustness: The Designer will take the Engineers information and translate the information onto fabrication and erection general arrangement drawings. The Designer has the unique ability to review the building in a virtual build sequence. Structural connectivity of the frameworks should be checked at this virtual build stage. The Designer may adopt standard details but it is essential that the Engineer has approved these details specifically for the project. The Designer should check the details for the following: a) Practical alignment of the structural frames and report on areas of misalignment or lack of support. b) All details at junctions or references to standard details are provided. c) The drawings have references to all special items as instructed by the Engineer. d) Ensure co ordination of information from different engineering teams working on different aspects of the structure and build items. e) Review details to ensure that there is no ambiguity or lack of information for the fabricator and erector.

Part 2 - Connectivity of the Framing members floors to walls: Introduction This section refers to a number of standard good practice connectivity details that are required to comply with the updated BS 5268 Parts 6.14) and 22), 2007. In particular, Figure M3 in BS 5268 Part 2 provides a deemed to satisfy detail for robust horizontal tying of floors to walls. For all platform timber frame structures, the approach is to adopt good building practice of providing lateral restraint to walls and common anchorage details of floors to walls. The design process should involve checking the capacity of the component interfaces (e.g. panel rail to soleplate, soleplate to floor deck, floor joists to head binder and head binder to panel rail) against the variable horizontal wind forces. The timber frame designer should therefore be providing a robust connection at each and every junction as part of the normal design process. Examples of Good Practice to assist robust Platform Timber Frame The following figures provide typical construction detailing between timber platform frame components for projects from 1 to 7 storeys to ensure minimum levels of robustness. The Engineer can specify more or less fixings depending on the specific project criteria. Index to Details: Figure 1. Softwood joists Wall/Floor intersection: exploded view based on Figure M3,BS 5268 2: 2002 2. Softwood joists alternative details at internal wall supports applicable to loose floor construction. 3. Softwood joists alternative details at load-bearing/Racking walls. 4. Softwood joists details at Beams. 5. I-Joist Floors Typical wall/floor intersection: exploded view 6. Open-web Floor joists Typical wall/floor intersection: exploded view

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Topic: Purpose:

Technical Report - Stability of Platform Timber Frame To provide guidance and a worked example for the use of the Stability clauses contained within the revised BS 5268-6.1:1996 Structural use of timber. Code of practice for timber frame walls. Dwellings not exceeding seven storeys (AMD 9256) (AMD 17381) reissued November 2007. The new code supersedes BS 5268-6.1:1988. Amendment 9256 dated June 1996. Amendment 17381 dated November 2007. February 2008 Platform Timber Frame, Racking Overturning check, Sliding resistance check The British Standard for the design of platform timber frame buildings is covered by BS 5268-6.1:1996 and BS 5268-6.2:2001. The November 2007 edition of BS 5268-6.1:1996 has been updated to take account of experience with this type of construction and the issue of relevant European standards. The scope has been extended from 4 storeys to 7 storeys. The code contains significant clause changes affecting how the stability of timber frame racking walls are to be considered for buildings in excess of three storeys tall. This document provides guidance on the use of the new BS 52686.1:1996 Clause 4.4 Stability including a worked example for a typical four storey building. The change in design approach to stability required by the new clauses is significant for dwellings above three storeys in height. In principle, the design approach for dwellings of three storeys or less and with a maximum height to width ratio of 2:1 is as the previous edition of the code and it is accepted that whole building stability can be adopted. However, to keep in line with European codes and other material standards, an increased factor of safety of 1.4 against building overturning and sliding resistance is required.

Report Date: Keywords: Background:

Building Regulations or Code Requirement relevant clauses

The following extracts are taken from British Standard BS 5268-6.1:1996 (+ Amnd No.1 & No.2) 4.4 Stability 4.4.1 General The designer should ensure overall building stability by checking that it has adequate racking overturning1 and sliding resistance to lateral loads. These checks should be made at critical levels for the completed building and for the various construction stages, when subjected to dead load, zero imposed load, and both horizontal and vertical components of the wind load. 2 Stability is generally obtained from racking walls, set in two orthogonal directions. Unless demonstrated otherwise, walls with significant openings, for example doors, should be considered as separate discrete walls. The racking resistance of each wall should be calculated in accordance with 4.7 for each direction. 4.4.2 Overturning 4.4.2.1 General Subject to the limitations in 4.5, it may be assumed that floor diaphragms are capable of distributing the wind load to each racking wall in proportion to its racking resistance. Due account should be taken of any significant eccentricity between the centroids of the wind load and the aggregated wall racking resistance. 3 The stability of each racking wall should be checked at the base as follows: a) The overturning moment is the product of the apportioned wind load and the vertical distance between its centroid and the wall base. 4 b) The overturning resistance of a wall is the product of the dead load (reduced by any

Commentary
The following notes provide some commentary on the interpretation of the new clauses:

1. Racking overturning is a deliberate statement to instruct the Engineer to consider the stability aspect of the walls that are designed to carry lateral loads through the building (ie the chosen racking walls). Previously whole building stability considered the racking forces to be evenly distributed through the structure such that the overturning and sliding forces are shared throughout the assumed boxtype structure 2. Engineering checks should be carried out at various build stages. The most critical loadcase is likely to be at full frame completion but without roof finishes, plasterboard weight and floating floor or ceiling construction. 3. It is common sense that Engineers need to consider the distribution of lateral loads through asymmetric buildings to individual racking walls. The Engineer is to consider the diaphragm action of the floors and roofs to distribute the forces to the racking walls. Section 4.4.2.1 allows for the ceiling/decking of standard Platform Frame construction to provide this diaphragm action without further checking for a maximum aspect ratio of 2:1.

4. Key point: the lever arm for overturning checks is the vertical distance to the centroid of the lateral load and not the height of the wall panel. 5. Engineering statics are used to calculate the inherent panel overturning resistance. Additional

vertical component of the wind load) and the horizontal distance between its centroid and the leeward corner. 5 Additional dead load from return walls, where present, can be utilized but should be limited to an outstand distance equal to the panel height or the distance to a door or window opening, whichever is the lesser (small openings as defined in 4.9.4 may be ignored). The connection between the return wall and the racking wall should be designed to transfer the shear loads based on the resultant applied design Forces. 6 Tension fixings may also be used to mobilize dead load from the underlying construction and their capacity added to the dead load as a contribution to the overturning resistance. c) The factor of safety of a racking wall against overturning is defined as the overturning resistance divided by the overturning moment. For each racking wall, under its apportioned wind load, the factor of safety should be > 1.2.
7

restoring forces can then be considered as in the remainder of the clause. 6. The weight of walls perpendicular to the racking wall can be used within the limits given and when fixed appropriately to the racking wall. 7. Alll racking walls require a minimum factor of safety of 1.2 against overturning. 8. The increased factor of safety of 1.4 for the aggregated overturning resistance of all racking walls brings the BS in line with Eurocodes. Key point: The factor of safety for racking resistance itself (ie FOS=1.0) remains unchanged with the factor of safety inherent within the design values for basic racking resistance Rb from Table 2.

The factor of safety of the total racking wall resistance, under the total wind load, should be> 1.4. 8 4.4.2.2 Overturning for dwellings of three or less storeys For dwellings of three or less storeys, and with a maximum height to width ratio of 2:1. the overturning resistance of the building may be determined as the product of its total dead load (reduced by any vertical component of the wind load) and the horizontal distance between the load centroid and the leeward edge. The factor of safety, as defined in 4.4.2.1c) should be > 1.4. 9 4.4.3 Sliding The designer should ensure that there is a factor of safety of 1.4 against sliding at the top and bottom of each racking wall, and at sole plate level. Friction, under dead load only, may be used in conjunction with metal fasteners when calculating the resistance to sliding10. The coefficient of friction between timbers in contact or on the underside of

9. For dwellings of three storeys or less the whole building approach for checking overturning is acceptable (see Note 1). Note: The UKTFA recommend that for dwellings exceeding three storeys, a whole building check for overturning should still be carried out and the factor of safety should be >1.4. 10. Note: The BS allows friction and mechanical fixing capacity to be considered together. When considering the use of mechanical fixings, the British Standard published values for timberto-timber fixings already include for a factor of safety of 1.4. The UKTFA considered that it is not appropriate to apply an additional factor of safety for the mechanical fixings. Alternatively the ultimate mechanical fixing capacities could be used with a factor of safety applied. For fixings into foundation materials, the Engineer should ensure that a factor of safety > 1.4 is achieved. 11. The UKTFA consider that the coefficient of friction is 0.4 as an unfactored value.

the soleplate may, in the absence of other information, be taken as 0.3. 11 4.5 Horizontal diaphragms The design method for timber frame walls given in this British Standard assumes that, for the range of dwellings covered, the normal construction of floors and roofs provides adequate diaphragm action, provided that, in the case of intermediate floors, a floor deck or sub-deck is fixed directly to the top faces of the joists, or the floor is braced by some other means. In the case of pitched roofs it is assumed that the plasterboard ceiling under the roof, together with the roof bracing recommended in BS 5268-3 is sufficient to transfer applied wind forces to the resisting walls. 12 Due account should be taken of the eccentricity of the loading in relation to the wall panels providing resistance. 13 12. The Engineer is to ensure the effectiveness of diaphragms for different construction types to transfer the horizontal loads to the racking walls. 13. This clause refers to the need for Engineers to consider the distribution of racking walls throughout a building (see Note 3) ie the racking walls cannot be positioned on one side of a building without providing racking walls at right angles to resist the resulting torsional effects.

References to other Guidance: 1) The Institution of Structural Engineers/TRADA Manual for the design of timber building structures to Eurocode 5 December 2007 For a worked example of overturning, sliding, racking and roof uplift checks for a dwelling of three storeys or less reference should be made to 2) Trada Technology Timber Frame housing: UK Structural recommendations 3rd ed.2006 Section 7.3 Overall Stability calculations, except that an increased factor of safety of 1.4 for overturning and sliding should be adopted in accordance with the new code requirements. Overturning and Sliding worked example for 4 storey dwelling: The following worked example indicates the procedures to be adopted for checking timber frame buildings of more than three storeys in accordance with BS5268-6.1:1996 (AMD 17381) Cl 4.4.2.1.

Overall Stability of Platform Timber Frame 4-Storey Building Worked Example to BS5268-6.1:1996 (incl Ammendments 1 & 2) November 2007 edition. Consider the example of a residential building shown below:

Roof Loads Roof hstorey/2

Floor Loads hstorey Third

Floor Loads hstorey Second

Floor Loads hstorey First

Ground

Fig 1. Typical Section

Wall 2 l/2

hstorey/2

Direction 1

Joist Span

direction

l/2

Wall 1 Wall 3 Wind

l/2

Wall 1

Wall 2

Width b (m)

Wind Direction 2

Fig 2. Plan on typical storey

l/2

Span l3

Wall 3

Span l2

Span l1

h1

h2

h3

h4

Calculation of Vertical Loads

Typical Unit Loads Assume the following typical unit loads for the worked example:
Estimated Unit Dead Loads (kN/m ) Item Roof Uplift(see note 4) Roof Floors Ext Walls(see note 2) Int Walls Permanent Gk -0.20 1.50 1.00 0.40 0.60 Temporary Gktemp(see note 3) -0.10 0.50 0.50 0.10 0.05
2

Notes: 1/ The above unit loads are provided as an example. Unit loads should be calculated for each individual building, taking into account the construction and minimum imposed loads from BS6399-1:1996 and BS63993:1998 or Eurocode BS EN 1991-1-1:2002 as appropriate 2/ The 'Permanent ' Dead Load Gk refers to the in-service applied dead loads. In the case of external wall panel self weight, this should include for the weight of any supported cladding type. 3/ The 'Temporary ' Dead Load Gktemp refers to the expected dead loads during construction and should generally exclude the weight of roof tiles, cladding, plasterboard, floating floors and ceiling constructions (the weight of plasterboard packs may be considered when it is specified that a building is to be 'loaded-out' during construction. 4/Roof uplift pressures have the effect of reducing the effective dead load for resisting overturning and should be considered. Loads to individual walls In the example, the joists are indicated as 12m long continuous span floor joists.

In such cases the internal support reactions will be increased due to the continuous nature of the joists. Taking into account the effects of pattern loading, it can be shown that the maximum internal reaction is approximately 1.25wL and the end span reactions are 0.45wL, where L is one span and w the UDL on that span.

For floor joists parallel to external walls it is assumed that a load equivalent to half the joist spacing is carried by that wall. Summary of 'Loading-Down' In the example, the loads calculated at Ground Floor Level were as follows: a) Internal Wall 1 = b) External Wall 2 = c) External Wall 3 = d) Total Building weight = (kN/m) Perm Temp Gktemp Gk 28.90 10.20 12.50 6.09 (kN) 540.00 194.40 4.60 1.77

Calculation of Horizontal loads The governing horizontal loadcase for timber frame buildings in the UK will generally be wind loading, however it may also be necessary to check for the effects of notional horizontal loading, accidental loading and imposed horizontal loading (from balcony forces for example).

Wind Loads acting on walls to BS6399-2:1997 Overall wind loads Pe should be calculated using BS6399-2:1997 Cl 2.1.3.6 for stability design. For simplicity, the worked example assumes that the overall wall wind pressures calculated is:
BS6399-2:1997 Cl 2.1.3.6

Permanent overall pressure

final =

1.00

kN/sq.m

For simplicity, assume no masonry shielding is applicable:

BS5268-6.1:1996 Cl 3.2.3.1

Assume no masonry shielding k100 =

1.00

BS6399-2:1997 Annex D

For temporary wind loads during construction, a factor of sd = 0.749 may be considered for wind loads with a probability of not being exceeded during a period of 12 months duration. Overall wind pressures are reduced by the square of this factor.
BS6399-2:1997 Cl 2.1.2.1

Temporary overall pressure temp = = 0.749 2 x 1.00 0.56 kN/sq.m

Wind Loads acting on Roofs to BS6399-2:1997 Wind loads acting on the inclined faces of a pitched roof (refer to BS6399 - 2:1997 )will also contribute to racking, sliding and overturning forces acting on the building and should be considered. For certain pitches of roof, BS6399 gives two sets of external pressure coeficients cpe, and it may be necessary to consider different combinations of coefficients to identify the worst loadcase for stability and racking checks. Roof uplift pressures have the effect of reducing the effective dead load for resisting overturning and should be considered. (For the worked example the overturning effects of uplift presures on the flat roof are small and have been ignored for simplicity). For an example of how to calculate the effects of roof wind pressures, reference should be made to Trada technology: UK Structural recommendations: Section 1.2.2

Dimensional Checks A/ Floor Diaphragm Check The floor and roof diaphragms distribute wind loads acting on the elevations to the racking walls and can be assumed to be simply-supported between racking walls. BS5268-6.2:2001 Cl 6.5 Wind 1 direction: Length/width = l/w = Wind 2 direction: Length/width = l/w = 6 12 = 0.5

0.7

Trada Technology ' Timber Frame housing: UK structural recommendations': 2006(2) It can be assumed that conventional floors and flat roofs, in which a wood based panel product is fastened to timber joists, have adequate strength and stiffness as horizontal diaphragms, provided that: 1/ the diaphragm span: depth ratio does not exceed 2:1 in either wind direction.

2/ the span does not exceed 12m between supporting walls.

3/the fixing around the edges of the panels complies with standard recommendations (e.g. 3.00mm diameter ringed shank nails @ 150mm c/c for plywood or 3.35mm diameter ringed shank nails @ 300mm c/c for wood particleboard and OSB, with a length equal to 2.5 times the board thickness) 4/ the perimeter of the diaphragm is attached to the walls with fastenings of equivalent strength.

For diaphragms outside of the ranges given or in areas of high wind load (e.g. with a dynamic pressure exceeding 1500N/sq.) the required fastener spacing should be checked in accordance with Section 1.1.2 of Trada Technology ' Timber Frame housing: UK structural recommendations': 2006 B/ Panel height Check to BS5268-6.1:1996 Cl 1.1 Storey height hstorey = Subdeck thickness = Joist depth = Headbinder thickness = Soleplate thickness = Wall panel height hpanel = 3000 mm 15 mm 300 mm 38 mm 38 mm 2609 mm

As the wall panel height does not exceed 2.7m, the example is within the scope of BS5268-6.1:1996

Calculation of Horizontal Wind loads and distribution of Racking Loads to Walls:

Vertical distribution of Loads: When calculating the racking loads on the wall panels in a particular storey, it is assumed that the wind loads on the upper half of the panel is applied as a racking load to the top of the panels, and the wind on the lower half of the panel is applied to the bottom of the panel where it is resisted either by the panels in the storey below or by the foundations. The mechanical fixings at the interface with the adjacent storey or foundations must therefore be proved for the racking and sliding forces to be carried at each level.

Therefore the total racking load on a timber frame wall is calculated as the racking load transferred from the roof or the storey above it, plus half the wind load applied to the same storey. Horizontal distribution of Loads:

BS5268-6.1:1996 Cl 4.4.2.1 For buildings which have an irregular arrangement of racking walls on plan, due account should be taken of any significant eccentricity between the centroids of the wind load and the aggregated racking resistance.
The Engineer is to consider the horizontal load distribution to the racking walls. The horzontal load attracted to each racking wall is to be determined to cary out the overturning check.

In reasonably symmetrical buildings it may be assumed that the overturning moment (and wind loads) are distributed between the racking walls parallel to the wind direction in proportion to their racking strength, assuming that their stiffness is proportional to their strength. One method therefore, is to assign horizontal loads in proportion to the racking strength of each wall. In the worked example, the floor and roof diaphragms are assumed to distribute wind loads acting on the elevations to the racking walls and are assumed to be simply-supported between racking walls. This approach is acceptable when the relative racking strengths of each wall are yet to be determined. It may be necessary for the Engineer to refine his assumptions once the racking resistance checks of the building are complete and the distribution of racking resistance is finalised. Summary of Horizontal Loading In the example, the Racking loads calculated at Ground Floor Level were as follows: (kN) Wind Direction 1: Perm Temp Frg Frg,temp a) Internal Wall 1 = 42.00 23.56 b) External Wall 2 = c) Total Building = Wind Direction 2: c) External Wall 3 =
31.50 17.67

21.00 126.00

11.78 70.69

Stability Checks to BS5268-6.1:1996

BS5268-6.1:1996 Cl 4.4.1

The designer hould ensure overall building stability by checking that it has adequate racking, overturning and sliding resistance to lateral loads. These checks should be made at critical levels for the completed building and for the various construction stages, when subject to dead load, zero imposed load, and both horizontal and vertical components of the wind load. Stability is generally obtained from racking walls, set in two orthogonal directions. Unless demonstrated otherwise, walls with significant openings, for example doors, should be considered as separate discrete walls. The racking resistance of each wall should be calculated in accordance with 4 7 for each direction
Overturning at lower storey
b

Wind Load Frg V

Lever Arm H1

h1/2

Ground Floor Wall Panel

Shear = Fs0

Check 1) Whole Building Overturning to Cl 4.4.2 The designer should ensure that the total building resistance for overturning under the total wind load is >1.4 at every critical level (UKTFA Guidance). Loadcase Permanent Temporary

Horizontal load causing overturning = Total Racking load to Ground Floor Panels Ftotal

Wind Load Ftotal (refer to Horizontal Load calculations) =

126.0

70.7

kN

Key Point: Note that the wind load acting on the lower half of the bottom storey has no effect on building overturning and is therefore ignored. The lever arm H is the vertical distance between the centroid of the wind load and the wall base. Key Point: The vertical load on the panel acts as a restraining moment. For each loadcase the minimum vertical load should be considered. Wind uplift should also be considered. The vertical load acting at this level is assumed to include the self weight of the walls at this level. For whole building checks, the walls perpendicular are also included in the total weight.

Vertical Load to Panels V (kN/m):

Permanent Loadcase V = Temporary loadcase V =

Overturning Check:

0.9(Gkperm) = 0.9 x 540 = 1.0(Gktemp) = 1.0 x 194.4 =

486.00 194.40

kN

Storey height hstorey Lever Arm H1

= = =

3000
h1/2+(h1/2 + h2 + h3 + h4)/2 3000/2 + (3000/2 + 3000 + 3000 + 3000)/2

mm mm

6750

Overturning Moment

= = = = =

Frg x H1 =

126 x 6750 x 10E-3 = 70.7 x 6750 x 10E-3 =

850.5 477.1 6.00

kNm kNm m kNm kNm

Building width b Restoring Moment

V x b/2 =

486 x 6/2 = 194.4 x 6/2 =

1458.00 583.20

UKTFA recommend that the factor of safety of the total building resistance for overturning under the total wind load is >1.4

Factor of Safety against overturning =

Restoring Moment =

1.71

1.22

Overturning Moment FOS<1.4, Additional HD measures are required at foundations Resistance of Whole Building to Overturning: EC0 requires the stability of a whole building and of its individual parts to be checked, regarding each as a rigid structure. The new design method deals with the stability of individual parts of the building (racking walls) in respect of overturning but not the overturning stability of the building as a whole. In theory the new method makes a whole building check unnecessary, since if the individual walls are stable with respect to overturning then the building as a whole must be stable. However, since EC0 requires the whole building check to be carried out, this should be done in the traditional manner and UKTFA recommend a FOS >1.4. Additional holding down resistance required for FOS>1.4: 1.4(FtotalgH1/b) - (V/2) = = Rhd = 1.4(126 x 6750 x 10E-3/6) - (486/2) = 1.4(70.7 x 6750 x 10E-3/6) - (194.4/2) = =

-44.6 14.1

kN kN

Where the resistance to overturning is inadequate (FOS<1.2 for racking wall or <1.4 overall), additional HD measures should be provided in the form of galvanised anchor bolts, screws, soleplate fixings fixed to the concrete slab or galvanised or stainless steel holding down straps built into the foundations. These fixings should be provided at 600-1200c/c along the walls perpendicular to the racking walls at both ends. These fixings should not be considered to contribute to sliding resistance. Check 2) Racking Wall Overturning to Cl 4.4.2 - Panel overturning check

BS5268-6.1:1996 Cl 4.4.2.1 The stability of each racking wall should be checked at the base as follows:
Internal Racking Wall I1 Consider an individual wall panel of length bpanel = 6.0 metres

Wind Load Fpanel

Lever Arm H0

Vertical Load V (kN/m)

Sliding Fs0 Base Reactions R1 = (Vbpanel/2) - (FpanelH1/bpanel) or as a UDL Rmin = V - (6FpanelH1/bpanel2) Rmax = V + (6FpanelH1/bpanel2) bpanel R2 = (Vbpanel/2) + (FpanelH1/bpanel)

Loadcase Permanent Temporary

"Apportioned" Racking Load to Panels

A racking wall which is broken into smaller racking panels by openings will carry a reduced proportion of the wind loads. Reduction factor rf (0-1) = Wind Load Fpanel = 1.0
Frg x rf = 42 x 1 = 23.6 x 1 = Vertical Load to Panels V (kN/m):

42.00 23.56

kN kN

Permanent Loadcase V = Temporary loadcase V =

Overturning Check:

0.9(Gk) = 0.9 x 28.9= 1.0(Gktemp) = 1.0 x 10.2=

26.01 10.20

kN/m kN/m

Storey height hstorey

3000

mm

Key Point: The lever arm H is the vertical distance between the centroid of the wind load and the wall base. Lever Arm H1 = =
h1/2+(h1/2 + h2 + h3 + h4)/2 3000/2 + (3000/2 + 3000 + 3000 + 3000)/2

6750

mm

Overturning Moment

Fpanel x H1 = 42 x 6750x 10E-3 =

283.5

kNm

= Restoring Moment = =
BS5268-6.1:1996 Cl 4.4.2.1

23.6 x 6750x 10E-3 = V x bpanel2/2 = 26.01 x 6^2/2 = 10.2 x 6^2/2 =

159.0 468.18 183.60

kNm kNm kNm

For each racking wall under its apportioned wind load, the factor of safety for overturning should be >1.2

Factor of Safety against overturning =

Restoring Moment =

1.65

1.15

Overturning Moment FOS<1.2, Additional HD measures are required at the ends of the panels Resistance to panel overturning: Where the resistance to overturning is inadequate (FOS<1.2 for racking wall or <1.4 overall), additional HD measures should be provided in the form of galvanised anchor bolts, screws, soleplate fixings fixed to the concrete slab or galvanised or stainless steel holding down straps built into the foundations. These fixings should be provided at 600-1200c/c along the walls perpendicular to the racking walls at both ends. These fixings should not be considered to contribute to sliding resistance For the end panels, or for panels where further restraint is needed (ie where FOS<1.2 against overturning), the required additional uplift resistance required is calculated as follows:
Wind Load Fpanel

Vertical Load V (kN/m) Lever Arm H0

Sliding Fs0 bpanel Holding Down Force reqd = Rhd=1.2(FpanelH1/bpanel) - (Vbpanel/2)

Net Base pressures = Rmin = V - (6(FpanelH1-VHDbpanel/2)/bpanel2) Rmax = V + (6(FpanelH1-VHDbpanel/2)/bpanel2)

Additional holding down resistance required for FOS>1.2: 1.2(FpanelH1/bpanel) - (Vbpanel/2) = = Rhd = 1.2(42 x 6750 x 10E-3/6) - (26.01 x 6/2) = 1.2(23.6 x 6750 x 10E-3/6) - (10.2 x 6/2) = =

-21.3 1.2

kN kN

Where further restraint is needed (+ve figure), the additional dead load available from return walls or HD straps should be considered: Loadcase Permanent Temporary
Vreturnwall x 2 x hpanel or Vreturnwall x l/2 (whichever smaller) 6.09 x 4 = 1.77 x 4 =

Load available from return wall Vhd = = =

kN kN 7.1 check interface nailing/ check interface nai 24.4

If the dead load available from return walls is still inadequate holding down straps or anchor bolts to the foundation at both ends of the end panels capable of resisting the vertical shear force should be provided (more detailed information can be found in Trada Structural recommendations(2)) Required Holding-down strap capacity = = = Forces in Edge Studs: The load available from a return wall panel has the effect of reducing the effective overturning moment on the panel and therefore reduces the base pressures due to the wind moment: Rhd - Vhd =
-21.3 - 24.36 = 1.2 - 7.08 =

0 0

kN kN

Net Base pressures: As a UDL = Rmin = = = = =

V - (6(FpanelH1-VHDbpanel/2)/bpanel2) 26.01 - (6(42 x 6750 - 24.4 x 6/2)/6^2) 10.2 - (6(23.6 x 6750 - 7.1 x 6/2)/6^2) V + (6(FpanelH1-VHDbpanel/2)/bpanel ) 26.01 + (6(42 x 6750 - 24.4 x 6/2)/6^2) 10.2 + (6(23.6 x 6750 - 7.1 x 6/2)/6^2)
2

Loadcase Permanent Temporary

-9.1 -12.8 61.1 33.2

kN/m kN/m kN/m kN/m

Rmax =

The resulting increased bearing stress in the bottom rail due to Rmax needs to be checked for very short term duration loading (k3 =1.75) Check 3) Aggregate Resistance to panel overturning:

The factor of safety of the total racking wall resistance for overturning under the total wind load should be >1.4

Because the horizontal and vertical loads carried by individual walls differ, the factor of safety for overturning for different walls will also differ but the aggregated factor of safety should be >1.4.

Racking Resistance: The total design racking load which a wall assembly can resist is equal to the sum of the racking resistance of the constituent panels ie: Fres total = Fres panel

The value of Fres panel depends on the shear strength of the panel and on the provision of adequate restraining force applied to the panel at its windward end to prevent its overturning (see above)

The shear strength of the panel can be calculated using the methods descibed in BS 5268-6.1:1996, Cl 4.7, BS 5268-6.2:2001, Cl 6.7 and Eurcode 5 BS EN 1995-1-1:2004 Cl9.2.4 and is outside the scope of this document.

Sliding Resistance:

BS5268-6.1:1996 Cl 4.4.3 - The designer should ensure that there is a factor of safety of 1.4 against sliding at the top and bottom of each racking wall and at soleplate level.
Horizontal sliding force to racking wall (kN/m) = Fs0 (refer to Horizontal Load calculations)/b = 48/6 = 26.9/6 =

Loadcase Permanent Temporary 8.00 kN/m 4.49 kN/m

(Note that the sliding force at the base of the panel also includes the wind load acting on the lower half of the panel and is therefore greater than the racking force on the panel)

BS5268-6.1:1996 Cl 4.4.3 - Friction, under dead load only, may be used in conjunction with metal fasteners when calculationg the resistance to sliding. The coeficient of friction between timbers in contact or on the underside of the soleplate may be taken as =0.3.
Soleplate to foundations and wall panel bottom rail to soleplate fixings need to be designed to resist this applied load.
Vertical Load to Panels V (kN/m):

Permanent Loadcase V = Temporary loadcase V =

0.9(Gk) = 0.9 x 28.9= 1.0(Gktemp) = 1.0 x 10.2=

26.01 10.20 7.80 3.06 kN/m kN/m kN/m

Frictional resistance at base of panel f =

V x = 26.0 x 0.30 = 10.2 x 0.30 =

Mechanical fixing capacity required for FOS > 1,4, Ffixings = = =

1.4(Fs0) - f = 1.4(8) - 7.8= 1.4(4.5) - 3.1=

3.40 3.22

kN/m kN/m

This mechanical fixing capacity can be achieved using nails, screws or bolts as appropriate using k factors appropriate to very short term duration in accordance with BS 5268-2:2002 Section 6. For typical interface nailing at foundation and upper floor levels refer to ' Technical Report -

Robustness and Connectivity of the framing members'

Head office
The UK Timber Frame Association The e-Centre Cooperage Way Alloa FK10 3LP t: 01259 272140 f: 01259 272141 e: office@uktfa.com w: www.uktfa.com